Investigative Documentary: Who’s Stealing America? (2020 Election)

  • Reasons Why The 2020 Presidential Election Is Deeply Puzzling: If Only Cranks Find the Tabulations Strange, Put Me Down As A Crank (SPECTATOR)
  • 5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms: Surely The Journalist Class Should Be Intrigued By The Historic Implausibility Of Joe Biden’s Victory. That They Are Not Is Curious, To Say The Least (THE FEDERALIST)
  • What Would It Take to Convince You The Election Was Rigged? (STREAM)
  • Legitimacy Of Biden Win Buried By Objective Data: Emerging Information From The States Render His Victory Less And Less Plausible (AMERICAN SPECTATOR)
  • T H E  I M M A C U L A T E D E C E P T I O N (LARRY ELDER, or, PDF, or, PETER NAVARRO AUDIO)
  • EXCLUSIVE: Peter Navarro Expands Election Fraud Memo, Number Of Illegal Ballots Dwarf Biden Victory Margin By Over Two (Peter Navarro released an exclusive update to his “Immaculate Deception” – NATIONAL PULSE)
  • A Simple Test for the extent of Vote Fraud with Absentee Ballots in the 2020 Presidential Election: Georgia and Pennsylvania Data. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D. (Revised December 21, 2020) (SCRIBD)

This is via EPOCH TIMES and NTD.

GEORGIA

NATIONAL FILE has a recent story about Georgia’s move towards sanity:

A report coming out of the Georgia State Senate concludes that illegal activity took place on Nov. 3 contrary to what Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger insists

A new report from the Georgia State Senate’s Election Law Study Subcommittee found evidence of illegal activity executed by election workers at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta on November 3 and 4, 2020.

The Georgia Election Law Study Subcommittee is a subcommittee of the Georgia State Senate Judiciary Committee. Subcommittee Chairman, William Ligon (R), said the draft report has not been formally approved by either the subcommittee or the Judicial Committee.

“The events at the State Farm Arena are particularly disturbing because they demonstrated intent on the part of election workers to exclude the public from viewing the counting of ballots, an intentional disregard for the law. The number of votes that could have been counted in that length of time was sufficient to change the results of the presidential election and the senatorial contests,” the report reads.

“Furthermore, there appears to be coordinated illegal activities by election workers themselves who purposely placed fraudulent ballots into the final election totals.”

[….]

The subcommittee’s report acknowledged that a plethora of witnesses and experts testified about irregularities and fraud allegations during a public hearing earlier this month.

In summary, the legislators on the subcommittee wrote, the General Election “was chaotic and any reported results must be viewed as untrustworthy.”

ARIZONA

JUST THE NEWS as well has a promising move coming from Arizona:

The Republican party of Arizona announced on Monday that the state’s GOP electors will intervene in the case between Maricopa County and the Arizona state legislature over access to the county’s voting machines.

Kelli Ward, the chairwoman of the Arizona GOP, announced on Monday that the Maricopa County board of supervisors is refusing to comply with a legislative subpoena from the State Senate Judiciary Committee that requires the board to conduct an audit of the county’s Dominion Voting Systems machines to determine the legitimacy of the outcome of last month’s presidential election.

Instead of complying, the board of supervisors is suing the senate committee to avoid handing over the subpoenaed materials and machinery. The board, in its suit, argues that they cannot conduct a forensic audit of the voting machines because they are entangled in litigation (of their own making). 

The board also argues that an audit would jeopardize the secrecy of the ballots from electors. Ward however, said, “There is nothing that stops them from doing the audit.”

The Arizona Republicans are now moving to intervene in the case in an effort to ensure the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems machines takes place. 

“We are entering into this case,” said Ward. Lawyers for Maricopa County have, according to Ward, accused the Senate Judiciary Committee “of just wanting to get this data so that they can give it to us (the Arizona GOP).”

The purpose of the legal intervention from the Arizona Republicans is to ensure that the State Senate Judiciary Committee’s legislative subpoena is followed by the Maricopa County board. “We are doing everything possible to stop the steal, to maintain election integrity, and to force honesty into this process,” said Ward……

WISCONSIN

AND, out of Wisconsin comes news about an upper court win for Trump — DAVID HARRIS JR.

President Trump finally won one in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Of course, the media is concentrating on the case he lost. In that case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court refused to throw out 221,000 votes.

A victory would have won the state for Trump who is only behind by a little over 20,000 votes.

According to far-left Washington Post:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s lawsuit attempting to overturn his loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the battleground state, ending Trump’s legal challenges in state court about an hour before the Electoral College was to meet to cast the state’s 10 votes for Biden.

The ruling came after the court held arguments Saturday, the same day a federal judge dismissed another Trump lawsuit seeking to overturn his loss in the state. Trump appealed that ruling.

Trump sought to have more than 221,000 ballots disqualified in Dane and Milwaukee counties, the state’s two most heavily Democratic counties. He wanted to disqualify absentee ballots cast early and in-person, saying there wasn’t a proper written request made for the ballots; absentee ballots cast by people who claimed “indefinitely confined” status; absentee ballots collected by poll workers at Madison parks; and absentee ballots where clerks filled in missing information on ballot envelopes.

But it is the second ruling that could give Wisconsin to Trump provided the Democrats allow the Republicans to see the ballots and challenge them. These 215,000 ballots are from people who are allegedly “indefinitely confined.”….

What “Counts” as a Hate Crime? (RPT FLASHBACK)

  • (Reason for the FLASHBACK) I was invited to a Facebook group regarding recalling George Gascon (SITE | Facebook Group). While I support that, enthusiastically, I have seen a passion for hate-crimes… which I do not support enthusiastically. And it was then that I realized I had no real discussion or presentation of hate-crime legislation that was pushed through by Harry Reid back in the day. So this post is a combination of stuff from my BLOGSPOT days.

I want to lead with some articles and excerpts, interrupted by some media. I realized I hadn’t done much on “hate-crime” legislation on this .com — but I was posting on the issue on my old BLOGSPOT (hate-crimes posts) site because that is the time it was being put into law. This post is a FLASHBACK of sorts, and has to do with how hate-crimes are “interpreted,” which makes them a weapon for the social-justice warriors whims. For some background, I was writing on this more in 2009 because this legislation was passed then. Here is Star Parker noting the change in law:

President Barack Obama has signed into law the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. Actually, he signed into law the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act tacked onto which was the hate crimes legislation.

Sen. Harry Reid, our brave Democratic majority leader, slipped the hate crimes bill into the defense authorization bill to avoid having to have our senators consider the controversial hate crimes bill on its own.

It’s for good reason that our Democratic legislators wanted to hide under a rock while passing this terrible piece of legislation. It may help them with the far left wing of their party. But weakening and damaging our country is not something to be proud of. And that is exactly what this new hate crime law does.

(STAR PARKER & my old Blogspot)

Here JOHN MCCAIN opines on the issue of Harry Reid shoving that bill into a defense act (VIDEO). You will in the words and media below see how this PC take on what is “equal” actually destroys the premise of “equal under the law.” A good start is this short noting of “hyphenated justice” by Dennis Prager:

So… where do we start. Let us begin with a series of letters I made and put in the break-room at Whole Foods during a “summer session.” It was a newsletter of sorts of ideas I knew my co-workers had never heard of. Here is an excerpt from July of 2003:

Murder – Homosexual vs. Heterosexual[1]

Witness the wall-to-wall coverage generated by the murder of Matthew Shepard, the young Wyoming man who was lured from a Laramie bar by two thugs in the fall of 1998, beaten unconscious and left to die, tied to a fence post in sub-freezing temperatures.  The implicit assumption of the coverage was that Shepard had fallen victim to the often invisible but always sinister homophobia embedded deeply in American society, a pathology that could be cured only by hate-crimes legislation.  On the eve of the killers’ trial, Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times: “What remains as certain now as on October 22, the day Matthew Shepard died, is that this murder happened against the backdrop of a campaign in which the far right[2], abetted by political leaders like Trent Lott, was demonizing gay people as sick and sinful.”

Given the avalanche of press it received, there are probably grounds to wonder whether the Shepard case might have been over-covered, although the gruesomeness of the murder and the hate that drove it certainly raised it to the level of an important national story.  But when homosexuals are the perpetrators of violence instead of the victims, the sense of moral urgency seems to vanish.  This is particularly true when the violence touches on the explosive issue of gay pedophilia.[3] A case in point is the 1999 murder of a thirteen-year-old Arkansas boy named Jesse Dirkhising and the 2001 trial of the two gay neighbors who killed him.

According to prosecutors at the trial, the two men had become friendly with the boy and his mother, their next-door neighbors, and one day invited Jesse over to their house.  During the afternoon, they drugged Jesse, tied him to a bed, shoved his underwear into his mouth to gag him, and added duct tape to ensure his silence.  As one man stood watching in a doorway and masturbated, the other raped the boy for hours using a variety of foreign objects, including food.  The two men then left the boy in such a position on the bed that he slowly suffocated to death.

A Nexis search revealed that in the first month after the Shepard murder, the media did 3007 stories about the killing.  And when the case finally went to trial in the fall of 1999, it was all over the broadcast news, received front-page coverage in all major newspapers, and was featured on the cover of Time magazine.  (In all, the New York Times ran 195 stories about the case.)

In the month after the Dirkhising murder, however, Nexis recorded only 46 stories.  The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC ignored the story altogether and continued to do so through the March 2001 trial of one of the murderers, which resulted in a conviction.  (The other assailant later pled guilty.)  The Washington Post ran but one tiny AP [Associated Press] item about the case, along with an unusual ombudsman’s[4] defensive explanation of the paper’s decision not to cover the case.

Writing for the New Republic, gay journalist Andrew Sullivan had some insight into why there was such disparity between the Shepard case and that of Jesse Dirkhising, and why the press found the latter so difficult to handle.  The answer was politics, Sullivan wrote:

“The Shepard case was hyped for political reasons: to build support for inclusion of homosexuals in a federal hate-crimes law.  The Dirkhising case was ignored for political reasons: squeamishness about reporting a story that could feed anti-gay prejudice, and the lack of any pending interest-group legislation to hang a story on….  Some deaths – if they affect a politically protected class – are worth more than others.  Other deaths, those that do not fit a politically correct profile, are left to oblivion.”

Can Minorities Commit “Hate-Crimes?”[5]

Refusal to acknowledge the reality of anti-white racism is particularly evident in coverage of black-on-white crime.  According to some survey’s, in the 1990s blacks were at least three times more likely to commit hate crimes against whites than the other way around.  Yet in case after case, media coverage either refuses to acknowledge the racial subtext of such crimes, or fails to subject them to the same scrutiny used when the racial roles are reversed.  This is so even in cases where the racial motivation is clear-cut, as in the 1994 case when a gang of black teenage muggers confessed to police that it had intentionally limited its violent attacks in a Brooklyn housing project to elderly whites.  Police reports had one culprit admitting, “We made an agreement not to rob black woman.  We would only take white woman.  It was a pact we all made.  Only white people.”  Yet such details did not find their way into the stories run by the New York Times.  The same omission occurred in coverage of other black-on-white attacks, even when the assailants were heard calling their victims “white bitch,” “white ho” (whore) and “white KKK bitch,” as they were in an April 1997 attack on a white matron by a gang of New York City high school girls on a bus.

[….]

Another recent illustration of the media’s tendency to sidestep uncomfortable realities of black racism involved the case of Ronald Taylor, a thirty-nine-year-old black Pennsylvania man who killed three people and wounded tow others, all white, in March of 2000.  According to authorities, Taylor had grown enraged when managers at his Wilksburg, Pennsylvania, housing project sent white maintenance workers to fix something in his apartment.  He shot the two maintenance workers, killing one.  Then he set his apartment on fire and walked to a Burger King a mile away, where he shot another white person before going across the street and shooting three others at a McDonalds.  After that, Taylor stormed a building used as a senior citizen and children’s day care center, taking hostages before finally surrendering.

It would not take much digging to find a racist antipathy to whites in the background of Taylor’s rampage.  According to the Associated Press, which quoted the surviving maintenance worker, Taylor shouted, “You’re all white trash racist pigs.  You’re dead.”  Other published reports the day after the shootings had him barging into the home of a friend, saying, “I’m not gonna kill any black people.  I’m gonna kill white people.”

[….]

After finding racist and anti-Semitic literature in his home, the FBI finally labeled Taylor’s actions a hate crime, which forced the media to report it as such.  To some, the lag was odd.  As a writer for the webzine salon.com put it: “What took so long?  Why did the media, which normally promote not only the of hate crimes but of hate crime legislation, have to wait for the FBI to make this designation?”

To “Digress”[6]

The double standard slaps you in the face.

Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. Ronald Taylor, a black man, allegedly guns down five whites, killing three. What followed became a textbook case on how contemporary American journalism deals with race.  The suspect’s motive could not have been more clear. A black neighbor quoted Taylor as saying, “I’m gonna kill all white people.”

A white maintenance man described Taylor as disruptive ever since moving into the apartment building, “Whenever he saw me, he’d call me a racist pig, or white trash, or he’d make a point of walking past me and brushing up against me. He just didn’t like me.”  Yet the media leaned over backwards to avoid any appearance of racism. News anchors cautioned that we don’t know whether Taylor’s alleged hatred against whites was the “primary” or “sole” reason for the shootings. Pardon me. When did they add that requirement?

The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act defines hate crime as: “crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person.” No mention of hatred as a “sole” or “primary” motive.  Even the police issued mild, tentative statements about whether they considered Taylor’s actions a hate crime. “There’s a lot of hostility in this individual,” said Wilkinsburg Police Chief Gerald Brewer, “so I think it’s a little premature to simply define this as a racist event.” A little premature?

In August, 1999, white supremacist Buford Furrow gunned down several people at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles, and shot and killed a Filipino letter carrier. In the three days following the shooting, over 150 newspapers wrote nearly 200 articles about the slaughter.

On November 11, 1999, in Kansas City, an Ethiopian man shot and killed two co-workers and wounded a third person. All the victims were white. The Ethiopian shooter, who also shot and killed himself, left a letter referring to “blood sucker” whites. To date, how many newspapers carried a story about this apparent race-based shooting? Eleven.

The killing of Wyoming gay student Matthew Shepherd brought screaming headlines and around-the-clock coverage. So did the dragging and killing of black Texan James Byrd.

Jesse Jackson parachutes into Decatur, Illinois, turning the expulsion of seven high school kids into a referendum on race. Meanwhile, in Missouri, a carjacker steals a car. He tries to push out a seat belt-strapped child, and drives at high speeds, with the boy bouncing to his death along the highway. In Michigan, a six-year-old girl is shot and killed by a six-year-old boy. In these cases, the media informs us much, much later that the bad guys are black. Were it the other way around, how long before Al Sharpton holds a press conference, a somber Kweisi Mfume of the NAACP by his side?

Atlanta Braves relief pitcher John Rocker shoots his mouth off to Sports Illustrated, and everyone from Jesse Jackson to Jesse James piles on. But the same gang seemed strangely AWOL in the case of Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania. Where’s the somber gathering of the “black leadership” demanding that Congress pass enhanced hate crime legislation? Where’s the speech by President Clinton asking some blacks to cope with their pronounced and mostly unwarranted anti-white bias?

The double standard simply astonishes. George W. Bush must apologize for speaking at Bob Jones University, given the institution’s anti-Catholic statements and policy against inter-racial dating. And on the question of the Confederate flag, the media filed story after story on the Republicans’ response.

Yet the media allows Al Gore’s black female campaign manager, Donna Brazile, to derisively refer to the Republicans as the “party of the white boys,” while suggesting black Republicans J.C. Watts and Colin Powell are Uncle Toms. 

The media sits as both Al Gore and Hillary Rodham-Clinton trek to Harlem and kiss the ring of Reverend Al Sharpton, a David Duke in blackface. Nevermind that Sharpton falsely accused a prosecutor of rape. Nevermind that Sharpton turned a dispute between a black tenant and a Jewish landlord into a racial riff. Stirred up by Sharpton’s rantings, a black man set fire to the building in dispute, and then shot and killed several minorities before turning the gun on himself. Nice work, Reverend.

Sooner or later, the mainstream media and the white-man-done-me-wrong black leadership must face the facts. Black/white interracial crime is almost entirely committed by blacks against whites. By ignoring this, and holding black criminals to a different standard, the media heightens tension and divisiveness. 

[1] Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, William McGowan. Encounter Books; San Francisco: CA (2001), pp. 99-100

[2] Side-note: You rarely hear – if at all –the phrase “far-left,” but you do hear “far-right;” or, you never hear “religious-left,” but always “religious-right;” we hear “hard-line-conservative,” but never “hard-line-liberal.”  For instance, over a period of ten years, the Los Angeles Times used the term “hard-line-conservative” 71 times.  What about “hard-line-liberal?”  Surely such a person exists (Jane Fonda, Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, etc.).  Over the same period of time the Los Angeles Times used the phrase “hard-line-liberal” twice.  A Lexis Nexis search of the New York Times archives shows there are 109 items using the phrase “far right wing,” but only 18 items using “far left wing.”

[3] Side-note: Pedophiles seek out positions of authority and seclusion over their victims.  The relaxation of tough moral consensus on these issues (mainly due to the sexual-liberation movement of the 60’s and 70’s), have made institutions impotent (for lack of a better word) in forcefully dealing with this issue.  This is why the Catholic Church and Hare Krishna’s, as well as other institutions, are having trouble currently for crimes committed during the 60’s and 70’s.  The boy-scouts for example have an unofficial saying, “sodomy will not happen if you refuse to allow sodomites in.”  In our politically correct (“diverse”) culture though, this has been a tough road to travel for the Boy-Scouts.  And the “diverse” journalism merely fuels the fire.

[4] A person who investigates and attempts to resolve complaints and problems, as between employees and an employer or between students and a university, or in this case, between readers and the paper.

[5] Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, William McGowan. Encounter Books; San Francisco: CA (2001), pp. 59-60, 67-68

[6] By this I mean I am including an outside article with this Summer Reading SessionWhen the Bad Guy is Black”by Larry Elder (black writer and radio commentator), found at FREE REPUBLIC: and JEWISH WORLD REVIEW: “When the Bad Guy is Black”

Many people have not heard of Jesse Dirkhising. The media was oddly silent at the death of this little boy. Before going further… it was thought that Sheparhd was killed due to an anti-gaye hatred by his killers… a narrative pushed by the media. However, through real journalism, Stephen Jimenez (a gay man himself) wrote an excellent book entitled: The Book of Matt: The Real Story of the Murder of Matthew Shepard (Documentary Narratives) So as you read some of the below, the assumption was that this was a hate crime.

The Dirkhising story never caught on with the major media, which claimed it was not news because it was not a “hate crime.” As Jonathan Gregg wrote then for Time.com:

“The most salient difference between the Shepard case and this one, however, is that while Shepard’s murderers were driven to kill by hate, the boy’s rape and death was a sex crime. ” He continued: “It was the kind of depraved act that happens with even more regularity against young females, and, indeed, if the victim had been a 13-year-old girl, the story would probably never have gotten beyond Benton County, much less Arkansas.

(NEWSBUSTERS: “On ‘Hate Crimes Day,’ Remembering Media Blackout of Jesse Dirkhising’s Death)

  • In the month after Shepard’s murder, LexisNexis Recorded 3,007 stories about his death. In the month after Dirkhising’s murder, Nexis recorded 46 stories about his. … A LexisNexis search revealed only a few dozen articles that appeared only after The Washington Times story on the lack of coverage on October 22, 1999, a month after Dirkhising’s death.(WIKI)

Other articles wroth your while:

  • The Tragic Story Of Jesse Dirkhising (WND)
  • Not a Hate Crime (WND)

Here is some media to show where we are headed, and why we have not zoomed towards it is only because of the First Amendment.

Where Does Freedom of Speech End, and a Hate-Crime Begin?

A Norwich grandmother has had a visit from police after firing off a letter complaining about a gay pride march, broadcast on 26 October 2009

A Christian pensioner was verbally abused at a gay pride parade but, when she complained to her local council, the police investigated her for homophobic hatred.

Placing a Qur’an in a toilet or burning it is not a hate crime, even though it is treated as such.

And crimes like the following… are not treated as hate-crimes when they should be: “Vent with Michelle Malkin covers the Christian-Newsom Murders. The mainstream media finds some crimes more useful than others. Michelle explains.”

On Saturday January 6, 2007 Hugh Christopher Newsom, age 23 and Channon Gail Christian, age 21, both students at the University of Tennessee went out on a date.

They were driving in Channon’s Toyota 4-Runner when they were carjacked at gunpoint. Suddenly the crime turned far more savage than an armed car theft. Chris and Channon were kidnapped and driven to 2316 Chipman Street where they were forced into the home at gunpoint.

While Channon was forced to watch, her boyfriend was raped prison style and then his penis was cut off. He was later driven to nearby railroad tracks where he was shot and set afire. But Channon’s hell was just beginning. She was beaten; gang raped repeatedly in many ways, had one of her breasts cut off and bleach poured down her throat to destroy DNA evidence—all while she was still alive. To add to Channon’s degradation the suspects took turns urinating on her. They too set her body afire, apparently inside the residence, but for some reason left her body there—in five separate trash bags.

(FLOPPING ACES & LA SHAWN BARBER via SERAPHIC SECRETS and NEWSBUSTERS)

The entire “hate-crime” obfuscates justice rather than achieves it. There are reasons for this, and I will let ROMAN CATHOLIC BLOG from over a decade ago share their reasons why they think it is [or was] all the rage:

….It seems to me that “hate” crime legislation is an attempt to make sure that criminals should always be indifferent about their victims, taking an, “It’s nothing personal, it’s just business,” approach. I think the nature of a crime speaks for itself and its own nature should determine the merited consequence in the justice system. Criminal acts can carry serious penalties for the nature of the acts committed for without worrying about whether the criminal actively “hated” their victim during the commission of the crime.

Here are other reasons not to support “hate crime” legislation:

It is costly and difficult to prove hatred as a motivation.

Hate crime legislation sacrifices equality before the law by treating perpetrators of the same crime differently because they hold different beliefs.

Over time, hate crime laws and associated case law could evolve to the point that speaking out strongly against a particular group or its actions could be construed as a libelous hate crime, violating rights to freedom of expression, thought, religion (among others).

The danger of “hate” crime laws and “hate” speech laws is that they are being used to unfairly suppress religious objections to homosexuality (among other things) in this country and in other countries.

I believe “hate” crime legislation is essentially indoctrination that has been elevated to the status of law, and I do not want to live in a society where the government prosecutes thought crime.

How Many Non-Citizens Voted in 2016 ~ John Fund

Larry Elder was inundated with calls about a story on the Drudge Report about a possible 3-million non-citizen voters voting. Many of whom would have voted for the Democrat in any race, in this case, Hillary. So “the Sage” brought in John Fund, author of “Who’s Counting?: How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk,” to discuss the issue.

Fund brings some knowledge to the matter and notes we really do not know the number, but the few studies done show that it is enough people to make a difference in close state races.

Keep in mind , much of this isn’t nefarious by the persons themselves. The people standing out in front of Wal-Mart or other businesses often get paid per signature. So in one case the person asked three women walking by if they are registered to vote. The woman that could speak English noted that her companions were not citizens and could’t vote.

The person taking signatures said that wasn’t true and explained that the law [falsely] allows them to vote. The woman then filled out forms for her friends.

But again, when voter fraud happens — whether planned or mistaken — almost all of it happens to benefit the Democrats:

Voter Fraud ~ Guess Who?
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe Unleashes 200,000 Felons To Vote

|BOOM| FBI Case Against Hillary Re-Opened!

  1. fbi-hillary-1-clearMaybe it is because the 100[+] FBI agents that worked on the case are pissed there was no indictment, because THEY KNEW there was enough evidence for a criminal act (according to Federal statutes)?
  2. Or maybe it was because of Gowdy and Chaffetz (and others — THE DREAM TEAM) made the Director look like an amateur in public?
  3. Or the outrage from the public?

WHATEVER IT WAS/IS, here is the story about the case being…

*drumb-roll please*

…re-opened (h-t Reggie Dunlop):

The DAILY CALLER has this:

In a development that could shake up an already unpredictable presidential race, the FBI is re-opening its investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails.

“In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation,” FBI director James Comey wrote in an letter to members of Congress released Friday. “I am writing to inform you that the investigative team briefed me on this yesterday, and I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation.”

“Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predict how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony,” Comey wrote.

He added: “In previous congressional testimony, I referred to the fact that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had completed its investigation of former Secretary Clinton’s personal email server. Due to recent developments, I am writing to supplement my previous testimony.”

Speaking in Manchester, N.H. after the news broke, Republican nominee Donald Trump told an exuberant crowd the news, saying: “They are re-opening the case into her criminal and illegal conduct that threatens the security of the United States of America.”

Reacting to the news, House Speaker Paul Ryan wrote: “I renew my call for the Director of National Intelligence to suspend all classified briefings for Secretary Clinton until this matter is fully resolved.”

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, revealed the news on Twitter on Friday: “FBI Dir just informed me, ‘The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.’ Case reopened.”….

(DAILY CALLER)

And this from WAPO:

FBI TO CONDUCT NEW INVESTIGATION OF EMAILS FROM CLINTON’S PRIVATE SERVER

The FBI will investigate whether additional classified material is contained in emails sent using Hillary Clinton’s private email server while she was secretary of state, FBI director James Comey informed congressional leaders Friday.

The announcement appears to restart the FBI’s probe of Clinton’s server, less than two weeks before the presidential election, an explosive development that could shape the campaign’s final days.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Comey said that the FBI had, in connection with an “unrelated case,” recently “learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the Clinton investigation.”

Comey indicated that he had been briefed on the new material yesterday. “I agreed that the FBI should take appropriate investigative steps designed to allow investigators to review these emails to determine whether they contain classified information, as well as to assess their importance to our investigation,” he wrote.

The FBI had previously closed its investigation in July with no charges, though Comey had concluded there had been classified content exchanged on the server and that Clinton had been “extremely careless.”….

Kudos To Morning Joe On The “Bill Clinton Inc.” News Story

This is a must watch two videos and article mentioned herein by HOTAIR:

When MSNBC (even the painful-to-watch Morning Joe) takes a full seventeen minutes to discuss the “sleazy” connections between Bill Clinton and his cronies and their “get rich quick from other people’s money” schemes, it’s worth taking notice.

First take a quick read of Thursday’s Washington Post article titled “Inside ‘Bill Clinton Inc.’: Hacked memo reveals intersection of charity and personal income” which details the latest revelations about America’s favorite, corrupt first family:

The memo, made public Wednesday by the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks, lays out the aggressive strategy behind lining up the consulting contracts and paid speaking engagements for Bill Clinton that added tens of millions of dollars to the family’s fortune, including during the years that Hillary Clinton led the State Department. It describes how Band helped run what he called “Bill Clinton Inc.,” obtaining “in-kind services for the President and his family — for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like.”

Band and his Teneo co-founder, former Hillary Clinton fundraiser Declan Kelly, declined to comment. But Teneo issued a statement saying that “as the memo demonstrates, Teneo worked to encourage clients, where appropriate, to support the Clinton Foundation because of the good work that it does around the world. It also clearly shows that Teneo never received any financial benefit or benefit of any kind from doing so.”

Spokesmen for Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton and the foundation declined to comment.

There’s more to it and you really should read the whole thing….

El Cajon Police Department Release Video of Alfred Olango

Via LEGAL-INSURRECTION:

I am continuing to follow the developments related to the police shooting of Alfred Olango, after he took a shooting a stance and failed to comply with responding officers’ orders following a disturbance he created.

On Friday, the El Cajon Police Department released videotapes related to the incident, which clearly show Olango poised to take a shot with an e-cigarette.

Stop-n-Frisk The Truth

Some must read articles…

STOP & FRISK FACTS (New York Post);

There are too many stops.

Compared to what? In 2011, the police made 685,000 stops. They also arrested or issued summonses to 900,000 individuals, under the much more demanding “probable-cause” standard. There is easily as much behavior in New York that meets the lower “reasonable suspicion” standard for a stop as there is behavior that justifies an arrest.

If the department’s roughly 25,000 patrol officers and detectives made just one stop a week, they’d tally 1.1 million stops.

COURTS V. COPS: The Legal War On The War On Crime (The City Journal);

A central claim in the anti-stop-and-frisk crusade is that NYPD officers regularly accost countless squeaky-clean New Yorkers without cause. It should be easy, then, to assemble an army of Eagle Scout–like victims of police aggression. But four of the nine named plaintiffs in Ligon had criminal histories, not even counting their juvenile records; the plaintiffs’ nonparty witnesses had similarly troubled stories. A tenth plaintiff, named in the original complaint but dropped from the preliminary-injunction motion, was well known in his precinct for gang involvement and was arrested in connection with a shooting this December.

The Ledan family is typical of the Ligon plaintiffs and witnesses. Forty-one-year-old Letitia Ledan, a named plaintiff who lived in the crime-plagued River Park Towers, has been arrested about 15 times. In the early 1990s, she pled guilty to the attempted sale of crack; in the late 1990s, she was convicted of narcotics possession. In 2000, she pled guilty to loitering for purposes of prostitution and to using an alias in connection with that arrest. In the early 2000s, she pled guilty to the criminal possession of a weapon. In December 2003, she pled guilty to the possession of burglary tools. In 2007, she was convicted of aiding in the commission of a felony. Her sometime husband, Antoine Ledan, a nonparty witness, has had between ten and 20 criminal convictions over the last 15 years. Antoine was supposed to testify about an incident in which police stopped him and Letitia at River Park Towers, but the NYCLU never called him, claiming without explanation that he was “unavailable.” Letitia’s brother—36-year-old Roshea Johnson, another plaintiff in the case—has been arrested 21 times. He served six months in prison in the early 1990s for robbery; in the mid-1990s, he was convicted of assault, robbery, and using an illegal alias and served about five years in prison. In July 2003, he was convicted of evading the cigarette tax; in 2011, of cocaine possession; and in 2012, of menacing.

HILLARY’S DEBATE LIES: With her comments about crime, policing, and race, the candidate helps push a false—and dangerous—narrative (The City Journal):

Clinton claimed that “stop-and-frisk was found to be unconstitutional.” No federal judge would have the power to declare pedestrian stops unconstitutional, because the Supreme Court put its constitutional imprimatur on the practice in 1965. Stop-and-frisk remains a lawful and essential police tactic. Criminologist David Weisburd examined the practice in New York City and found that it reduced crime in shooting hot spots. Federal district court judge Shira Scheindlin did rule that the New York Police Department’s practice of stops was racially biased, but her ruling applied only to the New York Police Department. That ruling was wholly unjustified and would likely have been reversed on appeal, had newly elected New York City mayor Bill de Blasio not dropped the appeal. Judge Scheindlin used a population benchmark for measuring the lawfulness of police actions: if police stops didn’t match population ratios, they were unconstitutional, in Scheindlin’s view. Such a methodology ignores the massive disparities in criminal offending in New York City. Blacks commit over three-quarters of all shootings, though they are 23 percent of the city’s population. Add Hispanic shootings to black shootings and you account for 98 percent of all shootings in New York City. Whites are 34 percent of the city’s population; they commit less than 2 percent of all shootings. Such disparities in gun violence mean that virtually every time the police are called out on a gun run—meaning that someone has been shot—they are called to minority neighborhoods on behalf of minority victims, and, if any witness or victim is cooperating with the police, being given a description of a minority suspect. The reality of crime, not phantom police racism, determines the incidence of police activity, including pedestrian stops.

HOW TO INCREASE THE CRIME RATE NATIONWIDE: A ruling against the NYPD’s successful ‘stop, question and frisk’ policy would be sure to inspire lawsuits in other cities (Wall Street Journal);

The irony is that Floyd itself, once it came to trial after five years of preparation, was even weaker than the illogic of its underlying argument would have predicted. The suit’s 12 named complainants, standing in for a class of potentially millions, alleged that they had been accosted simply because of their race, yet many either fit a description of a criminal suspect or were engaged in behavior—such as trying to jostle open a house door in a burglary-plagued area—that clearly should have drawn an officer’s attention.

The Obama Justice Department, which has launched multiple civil-rights actions against police departments across the country, declined a 2012 request from some New York City Council members to investigate the NYPD for its stop practices. Yet Judge Scheindlin is unlikely to be so circumspect in her ruling. It was Judge Scheindlin, after all, who invited the Center for Constitutional Rights to file Floyd in the first place, after the center missed a deadline to extend an earlier stop, question and frisk ruling of hers that required the collection of the racial stop data now fueling Floyd. If she rules against the NYPD again, the city would most likely be saddled with a costly consent decree like Oakland’s, which puts a federal judge in ultimate control of police policy.

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT “STOP-AND-FRISK” (The Daily Wire).

A U.S. district judge declared stop-and-frisk to be unconstitutional in 2013. The judge, Shira Scheindlin, ruled in Floyd v. City of New York and Ligon v. New York that stop-and-frisk discriminated against minorities, and was therefore unconstitutional.

But as Mac Donald explains in her book The War On Cops: How the New Attack On Law and Order Makes Everyone Less Safe, Schendlin based her ruling off the research of Professor Jeffrey Fagan, which was flawed for the following reasons:

  • Fagan did not include the race of criminal suspects in his analysis.
  • His own research found that only six percent of police stops were unlawful.
  • Fagan did not distinguish between gang homicides and domestic homicides, which is important because domestic homicides are not usually the cause of street stops. Most homicides committed by whites fall in the former category, so by not distinguishing between the two, Fagan’s data model creates the impression of an anti-black bias.
  • Fagan also didn’t understand the purpose of Impact Zones, where the city would put in high numbers of rookie cops in high-crime neighborhoods, which typically were minority-dominated communities.

Therefore, Fagan’s data models purportedly showing discrimination against minorities as a result of stop-and-frisk can’t be taken seriously, and yet Judge Scheindlin used it to strike down stop-and-frisk.

This is a part from the Judges brief in the Floyd v. City of New York case, and you can see the flawed thinking in it… as will be expanded on as we proceed in the post:

Based on the expert testimony I find the following: (1) The NYPD carries out more stops where there are more black and Hispanic residents, even when other relevant variables are held constant. The racial composition of a precinct or census tract predicts the stop rate above and beyond the crime rate. (2) Blacks and Hispanics are more likely than whites to be stopped within precincts and census tracts, even after controlling for other relevant variables. This is so even in areas with low crime rates, racially heterogenous populations, or predominately white populations. (3) For the period 2004 through 2009, when any law enforcement action was taken following a stop, blacks were 30% more likely to be arrested (as opposed to receiving a summons) than whites, for the same suspected crime. (4) For the period 2004 through 2009, after controlling for suspected crime and precinct characteristics, blacks who were stopped were about 14% more likely — and Hispanics 9% more likely — than whites to be subjected to the use of force. (5) For the period 2004 through 2009, all else being equal, the odds of a stop resulting in any further enforcement action were 8% lower if the person stopped was black than if the person stopped was white. In addition, the greater the black population in a precinct, the less likely that a stop would result in a sanction. Together, these results show that blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites.

She notes elsewhere that the case she argued for — based on the 4th and 14th amendment — was this targeting minorities unlawfully: Judge Scheindlin ruled that stop and frisk, in practice, had a discriminatory effect on blacks and Hispanics, violating the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

  • “The Equal Protection Clause’s prohibition on selective enforcement means that suspicious blacks and Hispanics may not be treated differently by the police than equally suspicious whites…”.

She ruled against the city, declaring, among other things, that the idea that blacks have a higher crime rate than other groups is a “stereotype.” Please! In fact, her conduct on the bench [not just in this case] have been so egregious, that the Judge has “been repeatedly reversed—unanimously—by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on cases involving police authority, and even terrorism.” Continuing, BREITBART notes:

She has demonstrated such extraordinary bias as a judicial activist on this issue that the federal appeals court took the extremely rare action of ordering her removed from the case.

But her removal was not before she issued a decision declaring that stop-and-frisk was unconstitutional the way it was being implemented. Note that even Scheindlin would not say it was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s Terry case would make her a laughingstock if she took that position (which is the position that Hillary Clinton took in the debate). But Scheindlin said it was being applied in an unconstitutional manner that focused too heavily on blacks and Hispanics.

Many legal experts expected the Second Circuit to smack down Scheindlin yet again. But then de Blasio was elected, and he withdrew the appeal from the Second Circuit before they could rule on the case and announced he was ending stop-and-frisk.

THE DAILY CALLER likewise references her horrible case precedence…

…Scheindlin’s behavior was so egregious that a few months later the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals removed her from the case and ordered it to be assigned to a different judge, saying her behavior had given the appearance of impropriety to the case. Such a move is very rare, happening just one or two times per year. The Court was also poised to hear an appeal of the decision, which could have completely reversed it.

But as it happens, the Second Circuit never ruled on Scheindlin’s decision, and it remains in force. This isn’t because it was determined by any other judge to be correct. Instead, it remains in force solely because of the election of Mayor Bill de Blasio….

Here are two examples of the bad thinking the Judge used:

 

Keith Scott’s Wife’s Video Clearly Shows Gun (UPDATED)

UPDATED:

…That gun his wife says he doesn’t own? It showed up in the paperwork when she filed a restraining order against her husband. Who had a LOADED gun on him when he was shot. The guy who’s being held up as Charlotte’s BLM martyr? Not such a sweet guy…

“He hit my 8 year old in the head a total of three times with is [sic] fist,” she wrote on the form published by TWC News.

“He kicked me and threaten [sic] to kill us last night with his gun. He said he is a ‘killer’ and we should know that.”

(h-t to Matt James, via CLASH DAILY)

I previously uploaded this… and then erased it. I am posting this again because my original premise is right. After watching these two video commentaries on the issue, I am correct that this was the gun.

Thank You Deputy Matt!

Keith Scott Body Cam Analysis
Keith Scott Shooting Video Analysis

This is a small clip of the larger video (seen here). Shortly after this the officer picks the gun up, passes it to another officer, and it is dropped again (probably disarmed and cleared). You cannot see this clearly because the woman is shaking too much and takes the camera off the pistol.

BTW… “The gun that Keith Scott had on him during the deadly shooting was reported stolen after a breaking and entering, police said.”

During the longer video the wife is saying he is not armed but in the next breath saying “Don’t you do it!” Do what? “Don’t open the book.” The wife clearly knew he had a gun “Keith Don’t do it” what else would she be referring to? Take note as well from one of the officer’s body-cams an ankle holster is clearly seen as well as him holding a weapon of some sort.

The officers repeatedly told the man to drop the gun, over a dozen times in fact. Are there people out there that actually think they’re just making that up? That they’re just saying he has a gun to have an excuse to shoot him? The man was given numerous opportunities to drop the weapon and to comply. And he didn’t.

But yet we have people like Hillary Clinton — in similar fashion to Obama — blaming the police. And creating more racial tension by finishing up that part of the debate by saying we are all racists:

“When talking about race-relations in the country, and the shootings of black men by police officers, debate moderator Lester Holt asked Mrs. Clinton: “Last week you said that we have to do everything possible to improve policing to go right at implicit bias. Do you believe police are implicitly biased against black people?

Mrs. Clinton replied: “I think implicit bias is a problem for everyone, not just police. I think unfortunately too many of us in our great country jump to conclusions about each other and therefore I think we need all of us to be asked the hard questions ‘why am I feeling this way?’”

(GAY PATRIOT)

Another “Hands-Up-Don’t Shoot” Narrative Falls Apart (Updated)

Updates at the Bottom (jump)

The narrative is that a pastor’s vehicle broke down and police shot him with his hand’s up. The multiple videos I have seen on this show this narrative to be otherwise. Here is the short video of the encounter:

(Side-Note: from 13-sec-to-23-sec, you can see the window is down and it even looks like Crutcher is reaching inside the vehicle — or at least having his hand down by his waist.)

First, let us look at the original 911 call:

Dispatch: What’s the address of your emergency.

Caller: Uhh it’s south of, uhh, 36th street and Lewis.

Dispatch: Alright. Is it on Lewis or is it on 36th?

Caller: Uhh, no. It’s actually an abandoned vehicle. Somebody left their vehicle running in the middle of the street. The door is wide open.

[….]

Dispatch: OK. It’s a tan(vehicle). And there’s nobody around it?

Caller: There was a guy running from it. He, like ‘somebody was going to blow up.’ I think he’s smoking something.

Dispatch: Ohh (laughing).

Caller: I was rude to him too because I got out and was like, ‘do you need  help’? And he was like, ‘come here, come here.’ I said ‘well, what’s going on’ and he’s like, ‘come here come here. I think it’s going to blow up.’ I’m like, ‘nah I’m out.’

Dispatch: OK.

Caller: He started freaking out and he took off running.

Dispatch: Oh, wow.

Caller: Yeah, I think he’s smoking something.

Dispatch: Okay, a vehicle is running in the middle of 36th Street.

A few things to surmise from this.

While the first mention of “smoking something” could have been made in jest, the second instance the caller relayed important information to the dispatcher. Very possibly this person was intoxicated on some kind of drug.

The second thing I surmised from the 911 call is that this person was a threat to civilians in his approaching a citizen talking crazy.

The third thing I surmised from the call is that the vehicle was not broke down but still running. Which makes the police response even more weary in that when a vehicle breaks down it usually stops running or is turned off and hazard lights turned on.

The full video of the second cruiser to show up can be found here. From this video a few things can be surmised.

The first being is that Terence Crutcher (the suspect who was shot) was already asked by a female officer what the issue was, and when she surmised the situation was out of her control and needed back-up, she called for it.

He was too big for her to handle, and she probably surmised he was high on something and so her physically engaging him was off the table. Why? Because she did not know if (a) he was armed with a weapon, and (b) he could easily take her weapon away in a physical confrontation.

As Terence was walking away he ignored repeated commands to stop… this is when the second unit showed up. 

Other officers joined in the warnings as Terence continued to walk towards his vehicle.

Combining visual evidence from the two videos more things can be surmised that dissuade one from believing the narrative. And one should keep in mind this was a rural area with homes nearby… so allowing a suspect with what is known so far to reenter a vehicle to either turn it into a weapon that could kill civilians (children playing in the street in one of the side-streets); or retrieving a weapon to then use on the officers responding to the call. Here is an excellent article by BEARING ARMS (h-t to Kathleen P.) entitled, “Why Cops Don’t Let Suspects Return To Their Vehicles: The Murder of Kyle Dinkheller

There are many outraged people complaining that Tulsa Police Department officer Betty Shelby “murdered” Terence Crutcher for refusing to follow lawful police commands, returning to his vehicle, and allegedly lowering his hands to reach inside it.

They cannot fathom why an officer would feel threatened by a non-compliant suspect who returned to his or her vehicle and reaches inside.

That probably because they are probably unaware of one of the most infamous police shootings death of the past 20 years, where a Georgia Sheriff’s deputy gave a suspect pulled over for a simple speeding ticket every opportunity to surrender peacefully… too many opportunities, in fact.

Watch, and learn.

…continuing…

Okay, the videos:

One point is that when he was tazzed his hands were going towards his waist to retrieve key, a weapon, or open the door. In the police officers mind all could lead to a weapon (vehicle or gun).

He continued to ignore commands up to this point.

The original officer that responded to the call shot a single time to stop the suspect from entering the vehicle.

Other news related to the incident was that PCP was found in the vehicle supporting the 911 callers description and the idea that such large man could not feel pain and even with multiple officers could give a hell-of-a-fight and possibly wrestle away one of their weapons.

One should note as well that any police officer would not engage in a physical manner because the assumption is that he is armed… remember, they didn’t know if he was or wasn’t.

BEARING ARMS has an excellent post showing his arms were not up. He had clearly, at the time of his shooting, lowered his right hand toward his waistband. All-in-all the narrative we will hear is a false one.

Here is a response to a person on a friends Facebook that expands my thinking on a less factual level and more on a human level. Here is the comment that got me going down this road:

My issue is that they did not attend to him after he was shot. I don’t know the circumstances. I don’t understand how this could happen. But, how do you not attend to someone who is now powerless because you shot him? They just let him lie there? I just don’t get it?

Here is my response

I re-watched the longer video and it looks like they were still treating the dark tinted car as possibly holding another person. In other words, it was not cleared. As soon as they cleared the vehicle of any other occupants it looks as though they attend to him.

[….]

But the key here is that no matter the actions of the officers, the onus mainly lies on Terence. If the officers truly did not attend to him per their training, they will be disciplined, but, the tragedy of the entirety of the situation lies on Terence. Which breaks my heart Yvette V.B…. I do not “glory” in these conversations, or the life loss and that life’s continued fellowship with family and friends. The impact of that loss of life to assist in dividing the single human race, the altered beliefs in his younger family members who will grow up with a distorted view of justice, etc.

His choices had unfortunate consequences that at the time he didn’t realize. His choices will likely send a “butterfly” effect that is negative because of the distorted narrative through our current culture.

It brings a tear to my eye, but I am sure his senses returned to him at the moment of being shot. While I do not mean to be funny, I bet Richard Priors “Niggas vs. Police” flashed through his mind and I bet he wished — right then — that he had listened.

While I don’t know his heart, I can picture this story as relating that a person like Terence would want to go back and warn his family to make better choices:

“The rich man said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house— because I have five brothers—to warn them, so that they won’t end up in this place of torture, too.’ “Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets. They should listen to them!’ (Luke 16:19-31).

Take note that his choices will now effect those officers families lives. That female police officer (watching the longer video) was devastated. You could hear her voice in the dashcam audio breaking up in sorrow when she said “shots fired.” The helicopter video shows here crumbled over behind a cruiser with a fellow officer consoling her.

I think back to Darren Wilson, who was cleared by the DOJ and other investigations… but he can never work [even though cleared in the shooting of Mike Brown]. He must be wary of some sort of revenge because of the lie of “hands up don’t shoot” that came from that. He has to — for the rest of his life — fear for his families life. All for what? Protecting law abiding citizens.

The WHOLE thing is tragic. The whole thing.

In another response I noted the following:

I think they should have tasered him first. But watching the dash-cam video and the helicopter video he was ignoring commands. They were telling him to stop, and he did not. You can also see him dropping his hands to open his door. It is sad that a sense of pride has caused Terence to grieve his family and to divide a nation more. Larry Elder notes that even in the cases where the officer is clearly using deadly force when they do not have to, in that equation is resistance of some kind. If Terence had only followed orders, he would be alive (Romans 13:3-5). Pride is an SOB. In jail “brown pride,” black pride,” “white pride” eats away at people’s souls. Makes them see the world with distorted lenses.

Proverbs 16:18-19 tells us that “pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall. Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud.” 

In another conversation over the issue Seth S.V. wanted the female officer to…

For Petes sake the guy was nowhere near his car walking away with his hands up for 10 seconds in that video there was no attempt made to approach, disable, and search him.

[….]

There was in no way an effort made to close the gap she just casually followed him towards his vehicle then all the officers lined up in a firing squad position and he was shot like really man.

[….]

A female officer trained in basic grappling techniques would with no question have taken him down

This caused me to update a previous post on this matter that I noted according to Seth’s arguments is one against having females as first responders versus this being an argument against police mishandling the situation in which Terence Crutcher died. The onus is 100% on him, and not the police. No jury or judge would press any charges against these officers.


UPDATE


(Again, this is with a h-t to Katheleen P.) This update shows a history of bad choices and makes his choice to get a weapon to use on police or turn his vehicle into a weapon to harm civilians one of many bad choices… this one leading to his death. It solidifies the choices that the police had to make. Which is unfortunate in that it ended with a life lost. (The graphic to the right were current warrants out for Terence Crutcher, you can enlarge it a bit by clicking it.). There seems to be a dependency in the part of him getting out of prison after 9-years at the link below. I want to thank Craig M. for pointing this out.crutcheropenwarrants-470x286

  • 1996 Shooting with intent to kill — Dismissed
  • 2001 Petit larceny — Conviction
  • 2004 Driving while suspended — Conviction
  • 2005 Driving while suspended, resisting officer — Conviction
  • 2006 Driving while suspended — Conviction
  • Driving with open container — Dismissed
  • 2006 Trafficking in illegal drugs — Conviction. (He was also charged in that incident with assault on a police officer and resisting, but that was dismissed.)
  • 2011 Public intoxication (while in prison for drug trafficking) — Conviction
  • 2012 Public intoxication — Conviction
  • Obstructing an officer — Conviction
  • 2013 DUI — Conviction
  • Resisting officer — Conviction
  • Open Container — Conviction
  • Failure to wear seatbelt — Conviction
  • Speeding — Conviction

(CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE)

Poverty, Welfare, and Crime (U.S.-U.K.-Scandinavia)

This is merely two short audio clips from two separate economists and their recent studies for their books. The first audio is Michael Medved asking Edward Conard a question in regards to his book, The Upside of Inequality: How Good Intentions Undermine the Middle Class. (As an aside, Larry Elder used this audio in his Tuesday Sept 20th, 2016 show as part of his opening segment)

This next clip is from Thomas Sowell being interviewed by Larry Elder for the recent release of Dr. Sowell’s book, Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective.

Part of my reasoning for uploading these was a caller called into the show and challenged The Sage that the reason for black woes was white supremacism. I included in the Michael Medved YouTube desscription the additional information:

I listened to this Michael Medved hour before I switched over to my Larry Elder podcast.

I am glad I did because of a caller the “Sage” had on brought up that racism was the main cause for black problems in America and challenged Larry Elder on the statistic of children born out of wedlock. The caller brought up Iceland as a comparison noting similar births to single mothers, and less of the maladies that afflict the black community here in the states. The caller then said this was proof of white racism in America (and the lasting effects of slavery and Jim Crow [in other words, the lasting effects of Democrats]).

However, this is an apples vs. oranges comparison. Why? Because most of the children born to a single mother in Iceland still have an intact family or a very involved father, via ICELAND REVIEW:

….But I’d like to point out that no one mentioned single fathers. Does that mean that when a couple separates the father is out of the picture? The child is the mother’s and the dad can move on to greener pastures and, hey, to live up to the age-old myth of manhood, spread his seed?

No, far from it. In most cases, the father is involved, and as involved as the mother. Many ex-couples try to live in the same neighborhood so that the kid can spend a week in each home, without interrupting school and activities.

Parenting in Iceland is generally an equal partnership and, more often than not, a father will do his best to take the paternal leave available to him, if the finances at home allow for it….

(“SINGLE-PARENT HOUSEHOLD,” ICELAND REVIEW)